Th e concept of the Royal Prerogative in parliamentary debates on the deployment of military in the British House of Commons, 1982–2003 Teemu Häkkinen, University of Jyväskylä Abstract Th e article will discuss how one political key concept, the Royal Prerogative, was dis- cussed in the British House of Commons in relation to the right to deploy and use armed troops abroad during the period 1982–2003, a time when the role of the Brit- ish Parliament in decisions to deploy and commit troops to an armed confl ict abroad was under extensive discussion in Parliament. Th is discussion began increasingly to address the state of the constitutional arrangements, more specifi cally the redefi nition of the Royal Prerogative rights, the residual powers of the executive, as outdated in the understanding of modern representative democracy. Th e use of the concept was stud- ied to reveal the attitudes towards the constitutional state of the country. However, the legal implications of the concept remained unchanged despite such criticism. Th e discussion on the role of Parliament consequently bypassed the concept and focused on the parliamentary convention defi ning the role of the House of Commons to em- phasize a prior role instead of a retrospective role. Keywords: royal prerogative, the British Parliament, constitution, foreign policy, de- fence policy If there is one concept in the British political vocabulary that symbolizes war, it is the concept of the Royal Prerogative, the concept referring to a set of pow- ers enabling the executive branch to deploy troops abroad. In this article I will argue that in the period 1982–2003 the concept increasingly acquired nega- tive connotations in terms of waging war and in terms of how Parliament was perceived as a part of the decision-making. Th e concept was linked to the ques- tion of constitutional change to improve parliamentary opportunities to de- cide about the use of British troops in combat operations. Furthermore, I will Redescriptions, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Autumn 2014), © Redescriptions Association http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/R.17.2.4 Redescriptions 17/2 also argue that the discussion of the concept did not lead to the constitutional change embedded in restricting the usage of the Royal Prerogative, and the de facto strengthening of the parliamentary role came about by changing parlia- mentary practice. As a result the concept of the Royal Prerogative was partly bypassed in the war-related political discussion. For members of parliament (MP), only few matters may be graver than the idea of the country going to war. In the period 1982–2003 Britain partici- pated in many confl icts. First of all, Britons waged a defensive war in the Falk- land Islands in 1982 and a second war as a part of a larger coalition to stop an Iraqi aggressor from gaining benefi t from its illegal occupation of Kuwait in 1990–91. Britain also participated in two major confl icts as result of the ter- rorist attacks against the United States in 2001. Th e fi rst of these confl icts was the Afghanistan War beginning in 2001 and the second the Iraq War begin- ning in 2003. In addition with these, Britain participated in the war in Ko- sovo in 1999 as a part of a NATO operation, deployed troops to Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia and bombed Iraq in December 1998. Within the United Kingdom’s own borders, there was a signifi cant military deployment in Northern Ireland in order to curb violence. Perhaps the frequency of war in parliamentary politics has led to war being a rather typical decision under foreign and defence policies. As MPs have increasingly become professional politicians, war and the military have tended to become more remote from the lives of politicians. (See Riddell 1996, 84–187) Perhaps so, but as a decision-making process, the decisions on how Britain goes to war have undergone a profound transformation, a change that casts the argument of a weakening legislative branch in a new light. (Häkkinen 2014, 264–275) As a result of this change, the British House of Commons has be- come a forum in which decisions to deploy troops abroad have to be author- ized before an outbreak of hostilities; a radical change in the parliamentary practice compared to the situation, for example, in the 1980s. Th is was a result of a change in parliamentary convention, which dictates whether the House of Commons should have a chance to vote on war before or after the hostilities, and if so, whether by means of a technical or substantive motion. As late as in August 2013 this convention was reinforced, and in fact placed in the political spotlight in quite a dramatic vote over military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Th e debate culminated in a division in which the Government’s motion to accept its legal grounding to intervene the Syrian Civil War was rejected by a parliamentary majority with margins of 13 votes (272 in favour, 282 against). (HC Deb 29 August 2013, Vol. 566, Part No. 40, C 1551. Division No. 70) Th e discussion on the role of Parliament is above all discussion on policies, but simultaneously a discussion on the constitutional positions of the legisla- tive and the executive. At the heart of the uncodifi ed British constitution lie the fundamental political concepts that reveal the features and principles of 161 Teemu Häkkinen: Th e Concept of the Royal Prerogative the political system. Th e Royal Prerogative as a political key concept is the one which is addressed if the roles of diff erent branches of power are chal- lenged within the British political system, a part of the discussion on attitudes towards how Parliament should be able to act in decisions to deploy armed forces abroad. Th e Royal Prerogative refers to the prerogatives of the Monarch, as the con- cept itself suggest. It is royal in nature and in contemporary Britain the Mon- arch continues to personally exercise certain Royal Prerogatives, such as the prerogative to grant honours, when most exercise of any Royal Prerogative right has been transferred to the Government led by the Prime Minister. How- ever, in terms of deploying the armed forces, the Royal Prerogative relates to rather more profound issues and many of these rights are, in fact, related to the implementation of foreign policy. According to A.V. Dicey, the Royal Pre- rogative is a name for the residue of discretionary power that is still legally in the hands of the Crown and was, at least for Dicey, a supplementary means to actually strengthen the authority of the House of Commons. (Dicey [1915] 2010, 282; Richards 1967, 37) Th ey were, and still are, diffi cult to defi ne in a comprehensive way. (Blick 2005, 54) Th e Royal Prerogative defi nes pow- ers between the executive and the legislature, and was both set and limited in 1689, with the passing of the Bill of Rights. Th e Royal Prerogative referred to a much older set of prerogatives exercised by the Monarch; for example the right to maintain a standing army was in itself considered a prerogative. Th e role of Parliament was defi ned to be that relating to taxation and as such being funda- mental for both maintaining an army and going to war. (Jupp 2006, 7; Barnett 1970, 122–124) Constitutionally speaking the British political system and the underlying constitutional arrangements are consists not only of the Royal Pre- rogative, but of diff erent laws and principles in addition to parliamentary con- ventions - it is parliamentary practice that matters as well. In order to conduct the study, the verbatim records of the House of Com- mons, the lower chamber of the British Parliament in Westminster, were used to analyse the use of the concept of the Royal Prerogative during the period 1982–2003. Attention will also be paid to on other types of material if need arises, including other offi cial publications. Th e material used has been digital- ized and published in open access format via Internet. Th e database on parlia- mentary debates provides almost 100% coverage of the debates since the late nineteenth century and requires only limited external source criticism. How- ever, in terms of what the sources provide, the political nature of their origins is the source of the main challenges. First I shall discuss the methodological framework used to shed light on key details of parliamentary debate, after which the attention will be directed to the empirical fi ndings. 162 Redescriptions 17/2 Methodological refl ections Parliament as an institution emphasizes debate and in Britain the role of Par- liament has occasionally been seen as controlling government through discus- sion. Th rough debate, Parliament not only carries out its legislative processes but also voices the opinions of the electorate. (Bagehot [1873] 2000, 119) Speaking goes beyond mere oratory, i.e. speaking eloquently, and focuses on debate in which political struggles are conducted through dialogue with other MPs. As Kari Palonen has argued, the distinctive feature of the parliamen- tary style of politics is the debate pro et contra, for and against issues that are representing diff erent points of view on the matter. (Palonen 2008, 82–103; Palonen 2012, 21) In terms of making the use of language the key research theme, the attention can be focused on parliamentary discourse on specifi c topics. Th e term discourse is used not to refer to discourse analysis as such, but to discussions on certain topics that creates a discourse focusing on certain is- sues.